PETTY, Dr William (1623-87), of Tokenhouse Yard, Lothbury, London and Mount Mangorton, co. Kerry.

William Petty was born in Romsey, Hampshire, where his father was a clothier, and attended the local grammar school before going to sea at the age of 13. A year later, in 1637, he suffered a broken leg, and was left by his shipmates to fend for himself in Normandy, where he impressed the Jesuits at Caen with his precocious learning and was admitted to their university there, studying Latin, Greek, French, mathematics and navigation. He returned to England in 1639 and joined the navy, serving until 1643 when he again visited the continent, this time to study in the Netherlands and Paris, specialising in medicine.21Petty Pprs. i. p. xl. During this period he became a friend of Thomas Hobbes, and corresponded with John Pell.22Add. 4279, ff. 183-5; Lodge, Peerage, ii. 77.

Returning to England in late 1646 or early 1647 with £70 to his name, Petty set about applying his wide-ranging academic learning to practical (and potentially lucrative) projects. In 1647 he made contact with Samuel Hartlib, and assisted his schemes for the advancement of learning, including, in 1648, a plan to create a new university in London.23Petty Pprs. ii. 260-2; Burton’s Diary, ii. 543. In the same year, Parliament awarded him a patent for his first invention – a method of making duplicate copies of manuscripts by ‘double writing’ – and by this time he had also begun to establish himself as an academic physician, with expertise in the field of anatomy.24Lodge, Peerage, ii. 77. In 1649 he was at Oxford, as assistant to Thomas Clayton, professor of anatomy; in January 1650 he was elected fellow of Brasenose and awarded a medical doctorate; and in 1651 was appointed as Clayton’s successor.25Al. Ox.; Lodge, Peerage, ii. 77. Petty also achieved national fame as a physician with his revival of a hanged woman, Anne Green, whose body had been passed on to the university for dissection.26Lodge, Peerage, ii. 77; ‘Anne Greene’, Oxford DNB. By this time he had a private medical practice which was worth several hundred pounds a year, and it was this, as much as his reputation as a pioneering physician, which recommended him to the new lord deputy, Charles Fleetwood*, when appointing a physician to accompany him to Ireland in September 1652.27W. Petty, Reflections upon some Persons and Things in Ireland (1660), 17; Down Survey, 1.

Officially, Petty was employed in Ireland as the lord deputy’s personal doctor and as physician to the army, with a total salary of £365 a year.28SP28/88, f. 40; SP28/90, ff. 19, 371; SP28/91, f. 332; SP28/93, f. 46; SP28/95, f. 89; SP28/96, f. 127; Lodge, Peerage, ii. 80n. Yet, at the same time, he was able to maintain a private practice among the senior army officers and the leading Old Protestants in Dublin, which was worth far more, both in terms of income and influence.29Petty, Reflections, 17-18. He also used his existing contacts with the Irish members of the ‘Hartlib Circle’ to good effect, becoming a close associate of ‘the visible church of philosophers’ in Ireland, including the scientist Robert Boyle and his influential brothers, the 2nd earl of Cork (Sir Richard Boyle*) and Lord Broghill (Roger Boyle*).30Add. 6193, ff. 70v-72v; Barnard, Cromwellian Ireland, 217-8, 235-48. Petty’s intimacy with Lord Deputy Fleetwood would prove crucial to his later career. In the early months of 1654 Petty voiced his disquiet at the methods used by the surveyor-general, Benjamin Worsley, in setting out the forfeited lands to be re-allocated to the soldiers and adventurers, and spoke to Fleetwood and others in Dublin offering a ‘remedy’ in the form of his own ‘Down Survey’. His comments initiated an investigation which found Worsley’s scheme wanting, and in October 1654 Petty was authorised by the Irish council to take over the survey, with a fee of £7 3s 4d. for every 1,000 acres surveyed – terms which had brought Petty around £18,000 by the end of the decade.31NLI, MS 758, ff. 72, 109. Worsley was furious at Petty’s usurpation of his official duties, and remained his enemy despite an agreement which gave him a share in the considerable profits which would accrue from the survey.32Down Survey, 3-4, 7, 10, 13-15. Petty also attracted the condemnation of the more radical army officers in Ireland, who had expected Worsley, as a fellow Baptist, to favour their own claims under the Irish land settlement. As Petty later recorded, ‘whilst I only practised physic, no sect or faction was jealous of me; whereas since, every one of them thought even my thoughtless musings were plottings against their interest’.33Petty, Reflections, 20.

The hatred of the army interest for Petty worsened with the arrival of Henry Cromwell as lieutenant-general and acting governor of Ireland (in place of Fleetwood) in the summer of 1655. Petty took on the medical care of Henry Cromwell and his family, and gained the general’s respect through projects for the advancement of learning in Ireland. In the next few years Petty was rapidly promoted: in July 1656 he was appointed as commissioner for the distribution of the lands he had just finished surveying; and when Henry Cromwell became lord deputy in November 1657, he made Petty his secretary, and clerk of the council.34Down Survey, 184-5, 209. Thereafter, Henry Cromwell used Petty as a trusted messenger, carrying intelligence too sensitive to be written down to his allies in England in 1658, including John Thurloe* and Richard Cromwell*.35TSP vii. 114, 366, 400, 437, 492. The army, generally suspicious of Henry Cromwell’s friends, was especially hostile to Petty, who (by his own account) was ‘esteemed his favourite’ and ‘envied for my frequent privacies with him’.36Petty, Reflections, 38. In later years, Petty insisted that he had not used his intimacy with Henry Cromwell, or his various offices, to take bribes or influence governmental business for his own gain; but he could hardly avoid accusations of corruption over the land settlement, in which he was at once surveyor, commissioner for allocation, and a major beneficiary.37Petty, Reflections, 38-41, 49-50. There had been criticism of Petty from the army as early as June 1656, but the first serious attempt to discredit him came in 1658, when he was in England as Henry Cromwell’s agent at the protectoral court.38Down Survey, 89, 112-5. In November and December 1658, a group of army officers, led by Colonel Jerome Sankey* and assisted by Worsley, called for an enquiry into Petty’s behaviour. Henry Cromwell responded by appointing Petty’s friends and fellow commissioners to investigate the charges, and the lord lieutenant’s opposition effectively stalled the proceedings. The officers were not finished with Petty, however, and warned him that ‘though he be now defended, whenever the next Parliament shall sit, there are persons both of honour and courage so deeply concerned … [who] are resolved to unravel his actions there’.39Down Survey, 257-71.

Petty’s election for Richard Cromwell’s* 1659 Parliament should be seen within the context of the dispute over the Irish land settlement. It was crucial for Petty to secure a seat at Westminster to allow him to claim immunity from prosecution in the courts, and to enable him to challenge any charges raised in Parliament itself. He was also expected to be important as a government agent in the Commons, as ‘no person … in the three nations can do more to the settlement of the army and adventurers than he’.40Henry Cromwell Corresp. 440-2; TSP vii. 553. Petty allowed himself to be put forward for two seats. The first was the combined boroughs of Cork and Youghal, in co. Cork. This was the traditional preserve of Petty’s friends in the Boyle family, but his candidacy was against the wishes of the Boyles, and Petty soon found himself caught up in a bid for local power by a rival Munster landowner, Vincent Gookin*.41T. C. Barnard, ‘Lord Broghill, Vincent Gookin and the Cork elections of 1659’, EHR lxxxviii, 352-65. Petty had long been an ally of Gookin. He supported Gookin’s objections to the transplantation policy in 1654-5 (writing his own Discourse against the transplantation into Connaught, presumably in Gookin’s defence); they had served together on the land commission from 1656; and in 1658 Gookin had replaced Petty’s enemy, Benjamin Worsley, as surveyor-general.42Petty Pprs. 260-2; Barnard, Cromwellian Ireland, 220. In the Cork and Youghal election, Gookin claimed to be acting with Henry Cromwell’s blessing, and Petty may have been encouraged to stand as a result. Broghill ‘flatly denied’ suggestions that he would withdraw his own candidate (Francis Foulke*) in Petty’s favour, and proceeded to use his influence to prevent his election. Gookin’s undiplomatic behaviour was unwise, not only because of the importance of the Boyles, but also because the status of Irish MPs was uncertain, and their presence at Westminster would in due course be questioned in the Commons. Petty had already foreseen this danger, and had already secured an English seat, at West Looe in Cornwall, on 5 January 1659 – some 15 days before the Cork elections took place.43Down Survey, 271; Barnard, ‘Cork elections’, 358-9.

Despite the expectations of Henry Cromwell’s friends in England, who told him that Petty’s presence at Westminster would ‘be very necessary for his highness’s service, that your excellency give him leave to be here at the first sitting of the Parliament’, Petty remained in Dublin during the early weeks of the session.44TSP vii. 559. In the meantime, his enemies were preparing their case against him, which was presented by Jerome Sankey on 24 March.45CJ vii. 619a-b. The charges themselves were general, rather than specific, accusing him of receiving bribes, taking lands illegally and keeping others from their rightful owners, but ‘the speech Sir Jerome made, before he delivered the charge, made the business seem very great’.46Down Survey, 290-1; TSP vii. 639-40. According to Petty, Sankey was motivated by personal grievances, and also by ‘reason of state’: ‘to pull me down … as a small beginning to pull down the government itself’, and despite the protestations of the prosecutors, Henry Cromwell was convinced ‘that Petty is not the only mark aimed at’.47Petty, Reflections, 57; TSP vii. 651. The same opinion was prevalent at Westminster. Sir Charles Coote* warned Henry Cromwell that Petty ‘is like to find few friends here’ and advised the lord lieutenant not to ‘interpose in this matter, the house being highly dissatisfied with him’.48Henry Cromwell Corresp. 482. Aware of the risks involved in this case, Henry Cromwell’s supporters rallied round, with Thomas Clarges* working hard to make ‘many of our steadiest men favourable in their opinions of him’.49TSP vii. 658. Petty arrived in London on 17 April, took his seat two days later, and on 21st was called upon to defend his conduct before the House.50Henry Cromwell Corresp. 505; TSP vii. 658; CJ vii. 644a. In his speech he portrayed Sankey’s arguments as ‘general and confused’, and hinted that ‘there is more of malice and crooked design in this business than every man is aware of’.51Down Survey, 292-300. Yet the Commons wanted to pursue the matter further, and a motion to delay Petty’s hearing was defeated, but Parliament was dissolved before a decision could be reached.52CJ vii. 644a.

The dissolution of Parliament brought little comfort for Petty. Sankey played a key part in bringing down the protectorate in the days that followed, and as Petty complained to Henry Cromwell on 5 May, ‘Sir Jerome being now a very great man and one of the committee of safety did in a manner command me to stay here, declaring his pleasure to have me prosecuted another way’. Taking advantage of Sankey’s involvement in other issues, Petty quietly withdrew from London, awaiting an opportunity to return to Dublin ‘to proceed with my vindication’.53Henry Cromwell Corresp. 511. He was back in Dublin on 12 May, to find the Irish government in turmoil, and in just over a month he was sent back to London with Henry Cromwell’s letter resigning his position and submitting to the jurisdiction of the restored Rump.54Down Survey, 301; TSP vii. 684. Without Cromwellian protection, Petty was still more vulnerable to his enemies. Parliament considered the charges on 12 July, but decided to refer it to their Irish commissioners – a decision which did not greatly comfort Petty, as Sankey’s influence in Dublin meant ‘he had packed the cards wherewith I was to play for my all’.55CJ vii. 714b; Petty, Reflections, 76-7.

After months of ‘languishing’, the Dublin coup of December 1659, which broke the power of the radical officers, finally freed Petty from immediate danger. His friends in the Old Protestant community – notably the Boyles, Cootes and Kings – supported him during the early months of the Restoration, and his future was secured through the favour of Charles II, who was impressed by Petty’s learning, and encouraged his later experiments. He was knighted in 1661, became a founder-member of the Royal Society in 1663, and president of the College of Physicians in 1667. Petty continued to be associated with Ireland, securing the confirmation of his estates in 1661, and in 1667 marrying the daughter of Sir Hardress Waller and widow of Broghill’s cousin, Sir Maurice Fenton – both of whom had landed interests in Munster. Petty died of gangrene caused by gout in December 1687 and was buried at Romsey. His widow was created baroness of Shelburne [I] in her own right in the following year, when his eldest son also became Baron Shelburne [I]. The second son, Henry, went on to become earl of Shelburne [I], but neither son had sat in the House of Commons. Through his daughter, Anne, who married Thomas, earl of Kerry [I], Petty’s descendants included the marquesses of Lansdowne.56Lodge, Peerage, ii. 78-83.